On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 12:19:56 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 11:27:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:09:23
=?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?=.Marques
<[email protected]>@puremagic.com wrote:
I think you will be pleased with the argument, given D's
philosophy:
https://yinwang0.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/oop-fp/
Yeah. Both OO and functional programming are useful, but
trying to use any one
paradigm exclusively always ends up contorting things. To make
this clean, you
really need to be able to mix and match paradigms as
appropriate.
On a related note, a classic blog post that I quite like on
how Java takes OO
too far is
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html
If Java takes OO too far, what to say about Smalltalk and
derivatives?
Well, Smalltalk and friends are truly Object oriented, as opposed
to C++/Java/D etc which are Class oriented. So it is a little
different.
But something I've been wondering for years - is there a solid
rebuttal anywhere to Stepanov's criticism of OOP? He takes the
extreme position that (class oriented) OOP is useless. Surely
that can't be right, but...
It's trivial to find good procedural code. It's trivial to find
good generic code. It's trivial to find good functional code.
But finding top-quality OOP code is extremely difficult. Eg, the
code in the GoF Design Patterns book is widely criticised.
I just can't escape the feeling that class-based runtime
polyphorphism is almost never an ideal solution, and that most of
the benefits and success of OOP languages comes from things other
than OOP itself. And I think it's because OOP is philosophically
nonsense -- in the real world, similarities between things are
everywhere, but almost none of them are is-A relationships.
The balanced approach that C++ and D take is definitely the
better one IMHO
(and D tends to do it better IMHO, since it better supports
functional
programming than C++ does, meaning that you end up with fewer
FP solutions in
C++ even when they'd be appropriate).
- Jonathan M Davis
The future belongs to multi-paradigm languages, I would say.
What I miss still in languages like D, is the Hindley–Milner
type inference,
algebraic data types and pattern matching.
--
Paulo
